| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com-----Original Message-----
From: Shively, David [mailto:david.shively@cingular.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:37 PM
To: 'Marc Goldburg'; walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com
Cc: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)Marc,
I had proposed text back on Nov. 17 with the intention of including
guard bands; meaning that the RF emission bandwidth of the radio and
any required guard bands must fit within the licensed block. Thus,
a licensed block is equivalent to the 802.20 "block size".I think that using the block size (e.g. 5 MHz) to evaluate the various
proposals is completely quantitative and consistent as long as each
proposal is required to meet the same out of band emission limits. Here
I am assuming that a network operator has a licensed block of 5 MHz and
must adhere to the appropriate emission limits at the edges (such as the
US PCS limits in Part 24.238).Best regards,
David Shively
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goldburg [mailto:marcg@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:22 PM
To: Shively, David; walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com
Cc: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)
David, Walter,
Joanne's proposal to calculate spectral efficiency relative to a 99%
emissions bandwidth is the only quantitative and broadly applicable
proposal I have seen to date for accounting for the real-world effects of
coexistence on spectral efficiency. In the absence of any other proposals,
would your concerns be addressed by employing the 99.9% emissions bandwidth
instead of the 99% emissions bandwidth?Regards,
Marc
------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
From: "Shively, David" <david.shively@cingular.com>
Sender: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
To: Requirements Reflector <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:29:38 -0500
Walter,
I agree your points. For a realistic deployment in a licensed block of 5
MHz
(and assuming different network operators on either side of the block), the
99% emission bandwidth will have to be somewhat less than 5 MHz.Using "block size" in this way and also in the spectral efficiency
calculations
will enable a consistent evaluation between proposals.Also, the other block sizes (e.g. 1.25 MHz) should be treated in the same
manner.Best regards,
David Shively
- -----Original Message-----
From: Rausch, Walter F [GMG] [mailto:walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Joanne Wilson
Cc: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Requirements Reflector
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Spectral Efficiency (4.1.2)
Joanne,
I have great concerns that while your proposal is likely suitable for
systems whose adjacent block operators are utilizing the same technology and
concur with the shared operation, it falls short of protecting such adjacent
block operations that may be utilizing other technologies. The reality of
field deployability dictates that emissions that fall outside of the
authorized channel block(s) must conform to applicable regulatory
constraints. As a consequence, guardbands must be incorporated into the
channel bandwidth AND the spectral efficiency calculations. Channel
bandwidth is then the sum of the "occupied bandwidth" (the 99% power
bandwidth in your proposal) plus the required guardbands.Walter Rausch
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************